I'm happy Superleague at 14 clubs averages 9431 attendance per club. It's great and puts the game in it's best position since the early sixties.

I'm happy to trumpet the games achievements against the odds, well done RFL well done SL.

The white flags crack is just silly, if you think RL is missing a trick somewhere, then why don't you do something about it? Why don't you campaign for a revival at Oldham, or at Salford.... Why don't you go to Manchester and lead a campaign for the city to embrace RL again like it used to, why don't you go the Red Hall and show them how they have it all wrong?

Tap at your computer telling everyone else what everyone else ought to do because it's simple and easy, and do naff all yourself.

Even if it wasn't legal, they'd no doubt change the rules to suit anyway.
From a business point of view I get the wisdom of saving Bradford in the way they did in order to tease out a buyer but in my opinion that was a step over the line and in doing so they created a precedent.

If a club's management isn't good enough and clubs spend more than they can afford, that club should be demoted (if it survives that is). I've heard people say that such an act would be unfair on the supporters of the failing club and why should they be penalised? Well! They were happy to go along with the good times; with the good often comes the not so good.

Even if it wasn't legal, they'd no doubt change the rules to suit anyway.From a business point of view I get the wisdom of saving Bradford in the way they did in order to tease out a buyer but in my opinion that was a step over the line and in doing so they created a precedent.

If a club's management isn't good enough and clubs spend more than they can afford, that club should be demoted (if it survives that is). I've heard people say that such an act would be unfair on the supporters of the failing club and why should they be penalised? Well! They were happy to go along with the good times; with the good often comes the not so good.

SLE were perfectly entitled to make a bid to keep Bradford in SL because Bradford are a big club, have a great following and the top clubs need each other. Good call.

You say they stepped over a line,

There is no line at all. In business I can favour an associated business I like, and who may do me good, and I can at the same time allow another associated business who are a drag to go to the wall.

That's legally OK as unfair as it may seem. Precedents are enforceable only when the law is broken, and if RFL/SLE want to give charity to the bulls and fiddle whilst Salford burn, there's not a court in the land who can stop that, as it breaks no laws.

If bradford spent more than they could afford (which they did) again it actually broke no laws which is probably why they took that risk rather than taking the surety that in cutting wages to cut costs that would cut crowds so wages would have to be cut again because of costs and crowds would drop and cut again and eventually you have Halifax 2003.

If I ran a Superleague club and was told naughty Bradford (who bring me 2000 fans a game) should be demoted and I should be kind to Salford whose fans come in a taxi, I would say.......

SLE were perfectly entitled to make a bid to keep Bradford in SL because Bradford are a big club, have a great following and the top clubs need each other. Good call.

You say they stepped over a line,

There is no line at all. In business I can favour an associated business I like, and who may do me good, and I can at the same time allow another associated business who are a drag to go to the wall.

That's legally OK as unfair as it may seem. Precedents are enforceable only when the law is broken, and if RFL/SLE want to give charity to the bulls and fiddle whilst Salford burn, there's not a court in the land who can stop that, as it breaks no laws.

If bradford spent more than they could afford (which they did) again it actually broke no laws which is probably why they took that risk rather than taking the surety that in cutting wages to cut costs that would cut crowds so wages would have to be cut again because of costs and crowds would drop and cut again and eventually you have Halifax 2003.

If I ran a Superleague club and was told naughty Bradford (who bring me 2000 fans a game) should be demoted and I should be kind to Salford whose fans come in a taxi, I would say.......

Go and (expletives deleted).

It's a business not a friendly society Dave.......

You're quite right Parky - from a business point of view. I'm looking at it from a point of view of fairness / even handedness (is that a word?). I just feel situations like this tend to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many fans. You surely can't be surprised when fans bang on about the RFL being a joke?

I think we must remember that when the RFL made the offer to buy the Bulls they were belly up and in admin, which Salford aren't (as I write) so the situation is different; Assuming the current owner was prepared to sell, if the RFL took over the club now they would take all the debts too. We should also remember that, even though they said they would take over at Odsal, they never actually did, as their move brought out other bids, which we all assume was the plan all along.

The fact that, they appeared to know that other suitable bidders were waiting in the background, seems to be the major driver for the RFL acting as a catalyst by offering to buy the club and, for what it's worth, I don't think for a second they had any intention of running it. Whether anyone is waiting in the wings at Salford seems to be unknown. Maybe any prospective new owner would wait until they go into in admin? Who knows. The one thing we do know is that the situation appears to be different from the one at Bradford, and as such, the solution is likely to be different also and different ailments require different medicines.

The RFL should do what is within their power and is best for the Salford club, whatever that is. For those who just want to berate the RFL I would ask you to consider that, as yet, I doubt the authorities even know what the best thing to do is.

I'm happy Superleague at 14 clubs averages 9431 attendance per club. It's great and puts the game in it's best position since the early sixties.

I'm happy to trumpet the games achievements against the odds, well done RFL well done SL.

The white flags crack is just silly, if you think RL is missing a trick somewhere, then why don't you do something about it? Why don't you campaign for a revival at Oldham, or at Salford.... Why don't you go to Manchester and lead a campaign for the city to embrace RL again like it used to, why don't you go the Red Hall and show them how they have it all wrong?

Tap at your computer telling everyone else what everyone else ought to do because it's simple and easy, and do naff all yourself.

Are you aware you sound like a general in the Italian army ? This will never work, that will never work, CC clubs can never compete in SL, Sky will never fund a bigger league, two club cities are untenable, Manchester is lost, feeder clubs are the only option for the CC, Maurice Lindsay is infallible, expansion CC1 clubs are only there to benefit SL, no players can be produced by non SL areas, sucess for RL is not possible in Doncaster, Sheffield, Barrow, York or Halifax or Leigh. Oldham are beyond repair, SL must contract, maybe to 10 clubs and on and on. It s only a matter of time before a merger with RU is suggested or a contraction to 6 clubs.

That was why I made the crack about white flags and surrender. I wouldn't want you on my team when trying to win a game with 12 men.

Try a little optimism.for once.

That crack about me leading a revival of rugby league in Manchester is just as silly as you think the white flags comment was. I have not enough money, time or influence to do any of those things but if I could help in any way to do that, I would. Because I am, like you, an interested observer and supporter of all things RL, means that I have an opinion and ideas which I can express as I like on this forum. You certainly do.

I think we must remember that when the RFL made the offer to buy the Bulls they were belly up and in admin, which Salford aren't

That's a good point as the current asking price includes a significant six figure debt. The asking price may get down to £1 in administration. But any new owner would be taking on a business with operating losses of half a million or so a year.

Can I ask you this Mr. B, I thought it was SLE that offered to buy the Bulls, not the RFL?

That's a good point as the current asking price includes a significant six figure debt. The asking price may get down to £1 in administration. But any new owner would be taking on a business with operating losses of half a million or so a year.

Can I ask you this Mr. B, I thought it was SLE that offered to buy the Bulls, not the RFL?

I wasn't trying to catch you out I think it's significant in terms of SLE choosing to take action to protect a certain club. let's see if they do it with Salford.

I also wonder if all 14 SL clubs took a vote wether to make the offer or not, or wether it was an elite within the elite!!

It matters not whether you 'caught me out' mate, you were correct to put me right. I guess I got caught up in all the, "RFL did this and the RFL should do that", arguments and then mentioned the wrong people - it happens. My understanding is that there was one dissenting voice within the agreement, and though it was never disclosed which club, the general perception (brilliant kop out, that eh?) is that the club was the same one that had to pay a fee for a prop they thought they'd got for nowt.

I feel it was fortunate to to be as one sided as it was, and you certainly can't expect unanimity in something like that and as it turned out the dissenting voice went along with it (though I confess I'm not sure what the alternative was) so we had democracy in action.

It matters not whether you 'caught me out' mate, you were correct to put me right. I guess I got caught up in all the, "RFL did this and the RFL should do that", arguments and then mentioned the wrong people - it happens. My understanding is that there was one dissenting voice within the agreement, and though it was never disclosed which club, the general perception (brilliant kop out, that eh?) is that the club was the same one that had to pay a fee for a prop they thought they'd got for nowt.

I feel it was fortunate to to be as one sided as it was, and you certainly can't expect unanimity in something like that and as it turned out the dissenting voice went along with it (though I confess I'm not sure what the alternative was) so we had democracy in action.

Thank you ever so......

So 13 Superleague clubs out of 14 effectively said they would jointly take on Bradford to keep them in Superleague.

I just wonder if that is what has actually happened because Mr. Khan seemingly hasn't come in to put his own money into the club. He doesn't own the ground?

Has Mr. Khan come in on the proviso he will not lose any money on Bradford, and Bradford will not lose their SL status if he would be kind enough to manage the club in Superleague?

Is he the placeman of Superleague Europe? No criticism intended but we have seen a small cabal of SL bosses trotting off to court Toulouse. The topic is about the RFL running an individual SL team, but as per my correction i think it's about SLE organising the running of clubs who are not wanted on the open investment market.

So 13 Superleague clubs out of 14 effectively said they would jointly take on Bradford to keep them in Superleague.

I just wonder if that is what has actually happened because Mr. Khan seemingly hasn't come in to put his own money into the club. He doesn't own the ground?

Has Mr. Khan come in on the proviso he will not lose any money on Bradford, and Bradford will not lose their SL status if he would be kind enough to manage the club in Superleague?

Is he the placeman of Superleague Europe? No criticism intended but we have seen a small cabal of SL bosses trotting off to court Toulouse. The topic is about the RFL running an individual SL team, but as per my correction i think it's about SLE organising the running of clubs who are not wanted on the open investment market.

It will be fascination to see how it goes with Salford.

Omar Khan is the only one with money in the club right now, to the best of my knowledge. That money would be the £150K asked by the administrator plus whatever start-up costs have been needed, which I'd guess can't have been insignificant.

You're correct to say he doens't 'own' the ground. The freehold is still held by Bfd Met and the primary lease by the RFL. The Bulls have a secondary lease from the RFL. OK did say at a fans' forum that he asked the RFL to sell him the lease (for the sum they paid the old board) but they declined.

OK accepted the place in SL without pre-conditions - indeed it was a pre-condition of the RFL/SLE that he did so, and he wouldn't have got the go ahead if he hadn't. In fact, the current licence the Bulls have is a a conditional one which lasts only for the next season, and yes I know they have had to lose part of the funding for the nexttwo seasons, which doesn't make much sense when looked at logically. Clerarly though, whether stated or not, assuming our noses are kept clean, we should be safe for the length of the original (3Year) licence.

Omar Khan is the only one with money in the club right now, to the best of my knowledge. That money would be the £150K asked by the administrator plus whatever start-up costs have been needed, which I'd guess can't have been insignificant.

You're correct to say he doens't 'own' the ground. The freehold is still held by Bfd Met and the primary lease by the RFL. The Bulls have a secondary lease from the RFL. OK did say at a fans' forum that he asked the RFL to sell him the lease (for the sum they paid the old board) but they declined.

OK accepted the place in SL without pre-conditions - indeed it was a pre-condition of the RFL/SLE that he did so, and he wouldn't have got the go ahead if he hadn't. In fact, the current licence the Bulls have is a a conditional one which lasts only for the next season, and yes I know they have had to lose part of the funding for the nexttwo seasons, which doesn't make much sense when looked at logically. Clerarly though, whether stated or not, assuming our noses are kept clean, we should be safe for the length of the original (3Year) licence.

For what it's worth I think OK is his own man.

I've no doubt he's his own man Mr. B. but he's taking on a club who as you say has been shorn of central funding and has to keep the clubs "Nose clean". What's in it for him?

There seems to me to be a move from big investors coming in to SL clubs to shower the clubs with riches to capable businessmen who are looking to sensibly manage their clubs like Mr. Glover at Wakefield, he has however Newmarket to look forward to.

I do get a sense (could be completely wrong) that the entity that is SLE is realising it can't be a rich mans club, after 17 years that's not working for anyone really. I get the sense there's a bit of collective management of SLE for the good of all coming to the fore and Mr. Khans agreement to take on Bradford in disadvantagous conditions isn't just to keep the club as a chopping block for other SL clubs.

Whatever has been said between SLE & OK (and i'm sure something has) then as long as OK isn't expected to dish out his own money, and as long as you Bulls fans make sure you pack his two restauarnts so he'll need a third and fourth, I'm sure all will be good.

Over at salford the potential investors there seem to be negotiating a deal where they can "manage" Salford in SL with a much bettr stadium deal.

I've no doubt he's his own man Mr. B. but he's taking on a club who as you say has been shorn of central funding and has to keep the clubs "Nose clean". What's in it for him?

There seems to me to be a move from big investors coming in to SL clubs to shower the clubs with riches to capable businessmen who are looking to sensibly manage their clubs like Mr. Glover at Wakefield, he has however Newmarket to look forward to.

I do get a sense (could be completely wrong) that the entity that is SLE is realising it can't be a rich mans club, after 17 years that's not working for anyone really. I get the sense there's a bit of collective management of SLE for the good of all coming to the fore and Mr. Khans agreement to take on Bradford in disadvantagous conditions isn't just to keep the club as a chopping block for other SL clubs.

Whatever has been said between SLE & OK (and i'm sure something has) then as long as OK isn't expected to dish out his own money, and as long as you Bulls fans make sure you pack his two restauarnts so he'll need a third and fourth, I'm sure all will be good.

Over at salford the potential investors there seem to be negotiating a deal where they can "manage" Salford in SL with a much bettr stadium deal.

OK is coming across as being very altruistic, to be fair. What's in it for him? Maybe it's the old fashioned attitude of being the benefactor to a relieved and grateful populace?, truth is I dunno. There is no money to be made in RL and that is a fact and truth is I did him down in my last post when I said he'd accepted a place in SL without pre-conditions - what he actually accepted was ownership of the club without pre-conditions - as in no guarantee of SL and he, we, could have been placed in C2. though, as you say, things might have been said in private, though not for the first time, I just dunno.

I'm not sure about a deliberate move to a different funding method, to be honest, for my money it's just a matter of there are only so many 'sugar daddies' out there, and you can't have what isn't available. In truth I doubt any club would turn down a Moran or Whelan if he turned up on the doorstep. Certainly though, in the case of Omar Kahn, I for one look for no more than a businesslike way of running the club and he certainly seems much more proactive in his selling of the club and using its assets to the best advantage, like a breath of fresh air, in fact.